نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
عضو هیئت علمی گروه علوم تربیتی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز،اهواز ، ایران
چکیده
امروزه آموزگاران، دبیران، و اساتید دانشگاه از یک روش واحد برای اندازه‌گیری آموخته‌های فراگیران خود استفاده نمی‌کنند. برخی سؤالات آزمون انشایی را بر سؤالات آزمونهای عینی بویژه سؤالات چهارگزینه‌ای و یا صحیح - غلط ترجیح می‌دهند. با این که سؤالات چهارگزینه‌ای از شهرت بسیاری برخوردارند، برخی از روانسنجان معتقدند که تفاوتی بین این سؤالات و سؤالات صحیح- غلط وجود ندارد. در این تحقیق پیشرفت دانشجویان به وسیله دو نوع سؤال (چهار- گزینه‌ای و صحیح غلط) مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت. 304 دانشجو به طور تصادفی به دو گروه مساوی 152 نفری تقسیم شدند. در هر گروه 100 پسر و 52 دختر قرار داشت. از دو فرم آزمون یکی چهارگزینه‌ای و دیگر صحیح-غلط که هر دو یک محتوا را اندازه‌گیری می‌کردند به عنوان ابزارهای تحقیق استفاده شد. از سه روش متفاوت برای نمره‌گذاری سؤالات دو آزمون استفاده گردید. نتایج تحلیل یافته‌ها نشان داد که وقتی سؤالات دو آزمون به روش سنتی (روش اول) نمره‌گذاری شد و یا این که برای برابر کردن شانس کسری معادل به نمرات اضافه شد (روش سوّم) اختلاف معنی‌داری بین نمره‌های ترم دانشجویان در آزمونهای چند-گزینه‌ای و صحیح-غلط مشاهده نگردید. ولی زمانی که به پاسخهای غلط نمره منفی تعلق گرفت (روش دوم)، بین الگوهای پاسخ دانشجویان پسر و دختر تفاوت معنی‌داری مشاهده گردید. در کل پسران عملکرد بهتری از دختران نشان دادند. با این حال، ترتیب رتبه نمره‌ها در هر سه روش نمره‌گذاری یکسان باقی ماند.
عنوان مقاله [English]
A Comparison Between Multiple-Choice and True-False Test Items in Measuring Shahid Chamran University Undergraduate Students’ Academic Achievement in Measuement and Evaluation Course with the contorol of students’ absences
نویسنده [English]
- H. Sepasi
Faculty member of Department of Educational Sciences, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]
Teachers have long been concerned with the contributions of’ different types of evaluation to their students achievement. Many believe that the use of multiple- choice items provide greater students achievement and promotes more positive attitudes toward learning. On the other hand, psychometricians like Ebe] and Frisbie, believe that there is no significant difference between multiple-choice and true-false test items. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the use of true-false test is as effective as multple-ehoice test in mesauring students’ achievement- A total of 304 university students enrolled in the course, were randomly divided into two groups. One group participitated in a multiple-choice test whereas the other group received true-false items. Instructional strategies including objectives of the course, tests contents, and testing procedures were the same for both groups. Then, in order to find out whether the two groups were similar or different in term of their achievements, the correct response in the two tests were compared. The results showed no significant difference between the final scores of the two groups. This finding indicates that teachers should give attention to the contribution of both multiple- choice and true- false test items in measuring their students achievement.
Birnbaum, M. and Tatsuoka, K.K. (1987). Open versus multiple choice response formats. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement, Ii, 385-95.
Chase, C. (1979). Relative length of options and response set in multiple choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement. 16, 38-45.
Chou, L.M. (1991). Ordering power of separate versus grouped true-false tests: interaction on type of test with knowledge level of examinees. Applied Psycho logj’ Measurement. 3, 529-36.
Coffman. W.E. (1971). Essay examinations, in R.L. Thondike (ed.) Educational Measurement. Washington, D.C: American Council on Education.
Cronhach, L.J. (1984). Further evidence on response sets and test desgin. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 10, 3-31.
Crocker, L., and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc.
Ehel, A.L. (1968). Blind guessing on objective achievmcnt tests. Journal of Educutioni Measurement. 38,37-44.
Ebel, L.R. and Frisbie, A.D. (1991). Essentionals of Educational
Ebel, L.R. (1975). Can teachers write good true false test items? Journal of Educationi Measurement. 12, 31-36.
Frisbie, D.A. (1973). Multiple choice vs. true-false: A comparison of reliabilities and construct validities. Journal of Education! Measurement. 10,
297-304.
Frisbie, D.A. (1974). The effect of item format on reliability and validity. A study of multiple choice and true-false achievement test. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 34, 883-92.
Frisbie, D.A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 7(1), 25-3 5.
Gronlund, N.E. (1968). Constructing achievement tests. Nj, Prentic-Hall, me., Englewood Cliffs.
Gronlund, N.E. and Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. (6th ed.) New York: Macmillan Publishing Inc.
Hills, J.R. and Gladney, M.B. (1968). Predicting grades from below chance test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement. 5, 45-53.
Hogan, T.D. (1981). Relationship between free-response and choice type tests of achievement. ERIC Document Reproduction Sorvice No. ED 224-811.
Hogan, T.D, Quellmalz, F.S. and Capell, M.N. (1980). Effects of discourse response made on the measurement of writing competence. Journal of Educational Measurement. 19, 241-58.
Hoffman, B. (1962). The tyrany of testing. New York: Collier Macmillan Inc.
Huges, D.C., Keeling, B. and Tucker, B.F. (1983). Efficts of achievement expectations and handwriting on scoring essays. Journal of Educational Measurement. 20, 65-70.
Irvin, L.K. Halpern, A.S. and Landman, J.t. (1980). Assessment of retarding student achievement with standardized true-false and multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Measurement. 17, 51-58.
Linn, R.l. (1983). Testing and instruction: links and distinction review. Education. 81, 7-23.
Mehrens, A.W. and Lehman, J.l. (1984). Measurement and evaluation in
Mehrens, A.W. and Kaminski, L.M. (1989). Methods for improving standardized test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 8,
14-22.
Mueller, D.J. and Wasser, V. (1977). Implicatons of changing answers on objective test items. Journal of Educational Measurement. 14, 9-14.
Odd, C.W. (1981). Scales for rating pupils’ answers to nine types of thought questions in English literature. IL: University of lilinois, Bureau of Educationa Research.
Stanley, J.C. (1964). Measurement in today’s school (4th Cd.) Enghwood Cliffs, New Jersey Prentic Hall inc.
Stiggins, R.J. Rubel, E. and Quellmalz (1988). Improving thinking skills in classroom. Washington D.C: National of Educational Association.
Terwilliger, J.S. (1989). Classroom standard setting scoring practices. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice. 8(2), 15-19.
Traub, R.E. and Hambelton, R.k. (1972). The effect of scoring instructions and degree of speedness on the validtiy and reliability of multiple-choice tests. Educational and Pychokgical Measurement. 32, 737-758.
)