Abstract
Two studies measured the impact on student exam performance and exam completion time of strategies aimed to reduce the amount of paper used for printing multiple-choice course exams. Study 1 compared single-sided to double-sided printed exams. Study 2 compared a single-column arrangement of multiple-choice answer options to a space (and paper) saving alternative arrangement formatted into two-by-two columns and rows. Findings support the use of these simple paper reduction strategies as they had no effect on exam performance or exam completion time and were partially aligned with students’ self-reported preferences.
Colleges and universities are experiencing tremendous growth in green initiatives based on the sustainability mantra of reuse, reduce, and recycle (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2012). One of the more straightforward and popular approaches to this effort is to reduce the amount of paper consumed by the campus (see, e.g., Cole & Fieselman, 2013). For teaching faculty, participating in campus paper reduction efforts means adopting a number of practices that lessen the amount of paper needed to conduct a course (e.g., place course documents online, receive and grade papers electronically). When paper is required, printing double sided and intentionally formatting with paper reduction in mind is advised (i.e., smaller margins, smaller font size, and single spacing).
One common course document that continues to be put on paper for students is the paper-and-pencil exam; this despite empirical support for the use of paperless online assessment (e.g., Bayazit & Askar, 2012). Given the ubiquity of campus paper reduction campaigns, faculty may be inclined to print and format these exams with the intent of using less paper. However, similar to other exam specifications that have been studied for their potential to impact student test takers (e.g., paper color, item order; Pettijohn & Sacco, 2007; Tal, Akers, & Hodge, 2008), these paper-reducing approaches need to be evaluated to assure they do not have deleterious effects on exam performance or on how students interact with the exam (e.g., completion time). This article presents two studies that had this as their aim.
Study 1: Single-Sided Versus Double-Sided Printing
Faculty may choose to print course exams double-sided to save paper. This study measured the potential impact on student exam performance and completion time of using this print option compared to the single-sided print option. Student preferences for these formats were also measured. It was hypothesized that differences based on these print options would not be found (H o).
Method
One hundred fifty undergraduates (100 women and 50 men) enrolled in multiple sections of an educational psychology course were randomly assigned into one of the two conditions: exam printed single-sided (n = 75) and exam printed double-sided (n = 75). The exam consisted of 50 multiple-choice items that had a single-column arrangement of four answer options (A, B, C, or D). The exam was printed in black ink on white 8.5 × 11 copy paper. Standard 1′′ margins were used along with single spacing and 12-point Times New Roman font.
When a section of the class (typically 25 students) took the exam, it was handed out face down and students were prompted when to begin to assure a uniform start. Students wrote their answers on a separate answer sheet and completion times were recorded with a stopwatch when a student placed the answer sheet in a finished pile at the front of the classroom. At the end of the semester, students were asked to indicate their preference for having an exam printed either single-sided or double-sided and to offer a rationale for their choice.
Results
There were no significant differences for the groups (printed single-sided, printed double-sided) on exam scores, t(148) = −.902, p > .05, d = .15 (single-sided, M = 78.21, standard deviation [SD] = 7.09; double-sided, M = 79.39; SD = 8.76) or exam completion time, t(148) = 1.205, p > .05, d = .20 (single-sided, M = 30.59 min, SD = 6.88; double-sided, M = 29.28 min; SD = 6.43). Measured student preferences indicated students favored exams printed double-sided (109, 72.67%) over single-sided (41, 27.33%). The two main rationales offered for preferring double-sided printing were that it (1) used less paper so was environmentally friendly and (2) made the exam thinner and therefore less intimidating in appearance.
Additional analysis was done to determine if student preference interacted with exam format to effect student exam scores or exam completion times. A 2 (preference) × 2 (exam format) unweighted means analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each dependent variable (exam score, exam completion time). The dependent variables were handled separately based on their independence, r(148) = −.156, p > .05. No significant interactions were observed, exam score, F(1, 146) = 2.25, p > .05, partial ή2 = .015; exam completion time, F(1, 146) = 1.52, p > .05, partial ή2 = .01. Main effects were also nonsignificant throughout the analyses (ps > .05).
Discussion
The easiest way to decrease paper consumption when copy paper is needed is to print double-sided. In this study, the single-sided eight-page exam was reduced to four pages (50% reduction) when printed double-sided and used 300 less sheets of paper for the 75 exams printed in this manner. This was a noteworthy amount of paper saved. If this reduction were extrapolated to all paper-and-pencil exams administered on a campus, it is fair to say that a significant amount of paper would be conserved. In addition, double-sided printing did not impact exam scores or exam completion time. As such, it is suggested that faculty adopt this as their default print setting for paper-and-pencil exams.
College campuses have been described as “proverbial ‘hotbeds’ of environmentalism” (Lang, 2011, p. 203). This includes increased attention given to incorporating environmental issues into course curricula (for integrating sustainability issues in traditional psychology courses, see Koger & Scott, 2007). Given this milieu, it is not surprising that the preference for double-sided printing over single-sided was predominantly grounded in an environmental perspective that favored using less paper. The second reason given for preferring double-sided printing—it makes the exam thinner and less foreboding—draws attention to the anxiety provoking nature of the exam situation and the way that subtle things happening about the exam’s administration may play a role in escalating or deescalating student apprehension (e.g., forewarning of difficulty when disseminating exams, Weber & Bizer, 2006).
Study 2: Answer Option Arrangements, Single-Column Versus Two-by-Two Columns and Rows
Multiple-choice exam questions typically have a single-column arrangement of answer options (correct answer and distractors). To fit exam items into as little paper as possible, faculty may opt to format answer options in a horizontal fashion using rows. In this study, the traditional multiple-choice single-column presentation of answer options was compared to an alternative space (and paper) saving presentation of answer options formatted into two-by-two columns and rows (see Table 1) for their influence on exam performance and exam completion time. Student preferences for these layouts were also evaluated. It was hypothesized that differences between these answer option arrangements would not be found (H o).
Study 2 Arrangements of Multiple-Choice Answer Options.
Method
The same students in Study 1 were involved in this study (less two, n = 148). At an exam subsequent to that of Study 1, students were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: exam printed with single-column of answer options (n = 74) and exam printed with answer options formatted into two-by-two columns and rows (n = 74; see Table 1). Based on findings from Study 1, all exams were printed double-sided. All other aspects of the exam’s formatting mirrored those used in Study 1 (e.g., 50 multiple-choice items, 1′′ margins, single spacing). The same procedures used in Study 1 for measuring exam completion time and student preferences for the exam formatting options were also used in this study.
Results
There were no significant differences for the groups (single-column for answer options, two-by-two columns and rows for answer options) on exam scores, t(146) = −.807, p > .05, d = .13 (single, M = 80.92, SD = 6.83; two-by-two, M = 81.78, SD = 6.19) or exam completion time, t(146) = .957, p > .05, d = .16 (single, M = 28.87 min, SD = 6.81; two-by-two, M = 27.78 min, SD = 7.10). Measured student preferences indicated students favored exams printed with answer options arranged in a single-column (110, 74.32%) over the two-by-two arrangement (38, 25.68%). The two main rationales offered for preferring the single-column arrangement were that it was (1) judged to be familiar and (2) was considered to be easier to deal with visually.
Similar to Study 1, results of student preference were used for additional analysis to determine if preference interacted with exam format to effect student exam scores or exam completion times. The dependent variables (exam score, exam completion time) were again handled separately based on their uniqueness, r(146) = −.156, p > .05 and a 2 (preference) × 2 (exam format) unweighted means ANOVA was conducted on each one. No significant interactions were observed, exam score, F(1, 144) = 1.62, p > .05, partial ή2 = .011; exam completion time, F(1, 144) = .066, p > .05, partial ή2 = .000. Main effects were also nonsignificant throughout the analyses (ps > .05).
Discussion
Simple formatting of multiple-choice test items can reduce the amount of paper used when printing exams. In this study, double-sided printing with the traditional single-column arrangement of answer options used five total pages. When using the alternative two-by-two columns and rows arrangement, only four pages (20% reduction) were used, which saved 74 sheets of paper. Formatting test items in this latter style takes a bit of time and effort; however, those interested in taking this step will no doubt find this cost minimal in comparison to the paper conservation benefits that come from the practice.
Student fondness for the traditional single-column arrangement of answer options over the alternative arrangement is logical. As the students indicated, it has much familiarity (e.g., standardized testing, test bank items) and visual appeal. However, the paper needed to provide this preference does not seem justified, given the alternative formatting did not impact exam performance or exam completion time. It is suggested that this alternate arrangement still be considered even in the face of student preference for the more traditional style. Of course, sensitivity to students with challenges to perception (e.g., visually processing disorder) is advised.
Conclusion
Colleges and universities use a lot of paper to carry out their business. As such, paper reduction efforts carry the macro incentive of helping the environment and the micro incentive of helping an institution reduce its costs. The paper reduction strategies used in this investigation’s two studies had no harmful effects on student exam performance or exam completion time. It is concluded, with acknowledgment of limitations, that faculty interested in reducing their paper use may print their multiple-choice exams double-sided with a traditional single-column arrangement of answer options or double-sided with an alternative two-by-two columns and rows arrangement of answer options without worrying about negatively affecting either student grades or test-taking time. The only nominal concern is for overlooking student preference for having multiple-choice answer options formatted into a single-column if opting to use the alternative columns and rows arrangement.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.