Collin Wilber’s Honours Thesis was on the role of examination questions in guiding student learning. He used the following framework for the classification of examination questions in terms of what they required of students:

1. Tasks that do not require thinking

   1. Mechanical reproduction of knowledge (regurgitation)

   2. Mechanical application of knowledge and procedures

2. Tasks that require thinking

   1. Thoughtful application of knowledge and strategies

   2. Formulating informed opinions and responses

   3. Critical thinking

   4. Capacity for independent inquiry

He collected all the 1000 level question papers for the last five years, and labeled them as A1, A2, B1 – B4 on the basis of this classificatory framework. His finding was that only 10% of the questions belonged to category B, the remaining questions testing either A1 or A2.

His supervisor raised several objections. The first problem was the possibility that Wilber’s labeling of the questions in terms of the framework was biased since he used his own subjective judgment for the labeling. The second problem was the possibility of a single question testing more than one items at the same time (e.g. a question could simultaneously test B3 and A2.). The third problem was that Wilber did not pay attention to the relative weight of the question. If a question paper contained 4 questions with five marks each testing A1, and two questions with 40 marks each testing B3 and B4, Wilber’s methodology would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that 66.6% of the question paper was devoted to testing A1.

Task: Suggest ways of remedying the methodological defects in Wilber’s thesis.