Application & Analysis Stems: Testing Thinking, Not Memory

Learning goals

Distinguish recall stems from application stems — and write the second kind.
Build stems that require the examinee to run doctrine against new facts.
Audit a set for recall-heavy items and upgrade them.

Lesson 1 — Recall Vs. Application

"Which of the following is an element of negligence?" is recall — it tests whether the examinee memorized a list. "On these facts, did the defendant's conduct breach the duty of reasonable care?" is application — it tests whether the examinee can use the list. The MBE overwhelmingly tests application. Your bank should too.

Lesson 2 — The Application Recipe

An application stem has three ingredients: (1) a fact pattern the examinee hasn't seen before, (2) a call requiring a doctrinal decision about those facts, and (3) distractors that capture misapplications (not memory failures). If the key can be selected by someone who never read the fact pattern, the stem is recall wearing a vignette costume.

Lesson 3 — Novel Facts, Familiar Doctrine

Application doesn't require exotic law — it requires new facts for familiar doctrine. Take mailbox-rule doctrine the examinee knows and wrap it in facts they haven't seen: an acceptance sent by a new messaging platform, a revocation left as a voicemail. The doctrine is constant; the application is novel. That's the MBE's whole game.

Lesson 4 — The Recall Audit

Take any ten of your items and ask of each: "Could a solver who memorized the rule statement but never applied it get this right?" If yes more than twice, your set is recall-heavy. Upgrade by adding one complicating fact that forces the solver to choose which rule applies or how it applies — the near-miss fact that rules out the obvious answer.

Spot-the-flaw drill

(intended key: B)

Fact pattern: A driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian. Which of the following best states the standard of care in a negligence action?

A. Strict liability B. The reasonably prudent person under the circumstances C. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt D. The defendant's subjective intent

Flaw: the fact pattern is decorative — the key is selectable without reading it. The i

the fact pattern is decorative — the key is selectable without reading it. The item tests recall of a memorized phrase, not application of negligence doctrine.

Correction

Make the pattern do work: give facts where the standard's application is the question (e.g., a child defendant, an emergency, a professional) so the solver must apply the standard, not recite it.

Model rewrite

— cold-solve verified: 2/2 (solvers chose B, B)

Fact pattern: A 12-year-old riding his bicycle darts into traffic without looking and collides with a driver who had the green light but was glancing at her phone. The child sues the driver. What standard of care applies to the child's conduct for comparative-fault purposes?

A. The adult reasonably-prudent-person standard, because children engaged in adult activities are held to adult standards B. The standard of a reasonably prudent child of the same age, intelligence, and experience C. Strict liability, because the child created the danger D. No standard applies, because children cannot be contributorily at fault

Key: B

Drill key

The solver must apply the child-standard doctrine to new facts (is bicycling an "adult activity"?). Both solvers chose B; the near-miss distractor A captured the adult-activity exception analysis.

Sources

Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334. (On cognitive levels in item writing.)
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. Longman. (The revised Bloom's taxonomy — application and analysis levels.)