Students perform better overall on LOCS exam questions than on HOCS exam questions¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Across the mixed ANOVA, the main effect of exam question type was significant, with LOCS exam questions answered better than HOCS exam questions. → Deborah K. Anderson 2023
Evidence¶
Deborah K. Anderson 2023¶
Deborah K. Anderson, Michelle Schoenleber, and Stuart Korshavn. (2023). Higher-Order Clicker Questions Engage Students and Prepare Them for Higher-Order Thinking Activities. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00151-22
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Main effect from the 2 (clicker type) × 2 (exam question type) × 2 (semester) mixed ANOVA on exam performance; the article reports "performance on LOCS exam questions was overall significantly better than performance on HOCS exam questions" with a large effect size (Table 2 prints partial η² = 0.90). Coded i? because a partial η² from a mixed ANOVA is not a d-family effect size and is not converted here.
"performance on LOCS exam questions was overall significantly better than performance on HOCS exam questions, as indicated by a large effect size"
Studies bearing on this claim¶
Are questions at higher Bloom levels harder for learners, as the taxonomy's hierarchy assumes? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 4 narrower claims that bear on it: 5 distinct studies (3 associational, 2 causal), q2–q3, 0 of 5 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.
| Study | Design | Effect as recorded | Bears on this claim through |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deborah K. Anderson 2023 | q3 · causal · r2 | i? | this claim |
| Nero 2021 | q3 · causal · r2 | i? | After retrieval practice, undergraduates score significantly higher on lower-order thinkin (supports) |
| Bates 2013 | q2 · associational · r1 | i? | Students answer lower-taxonomy-category questions more frequently, but only by a factor of (qualifies) |
| Madaus 1971 | q2 · associational · r2 | i? | Proportions of variance explained follow a curvilinear pattern across the six taxonomy lev (qualifies) |
| Yuan An 2026 | q2 · associational · r2 | i? | LLM-assigned difficulty labels fail to predict empirical item difficulty in classroom retr (counts against) |
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- University examination questions concentrate at the lower cognitive levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, dominated by comprehension and knowledge — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Semester 2 students outperformed semester 1 students on HOCS exam questions regardless of clicker question type — related
- HOCS clicker questions during learning improve performance on LOCS exam questions more than LOCS clicker questions do — related
- Students perceive LOCS and HOCS clicker questions as equally helpful, despite exam performance differences — related
- After retrieval practice, undergraduates score significantly higher on lower-order thinking questions than on higher-order thinking questions about a studied passage — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
locs-exam-questions-outperform-hocs |
title |
Students perform better overall on LOCS exam questions than on HOCS exam questions |
description |
Students perform better overall on LOCS exam questions than on HOCS exam questions |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2028 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — deborah-k-anderson-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.