This is one of those times when my 'teaching for mastery' approach comes into play to help me, as well as the students!
I allow students to redo, for half credit, those items which a majority of the class missed. I set a criterion based on class size, number of items, overall grades, number of items missed, etc. So, for example, a student who just plain and simple blew off the test can't benefit toooo much from this system. Anyway, to make the long story short, for multiple choice items they have to write me one sentence about why they answer I think is correct is best (they can refer to/cite notes or text), and one sentence about what they were thinking when they picked their answers, which I did not think was correct or best. The first sentence is to make sure they now 'know' the answer. The second sentence is to give them an insight into their test taking strategies and skills--they often find that there emerges a pattern that they can work on for future tests across disciplines. But it can also show me where a particular weakness lies! Annette ps: usually just the D and A students take me up on this re-write offer! > At 11:15 AM 2/14/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >Hi everyone: > > > >Here's a scenario for your consideration. > > > >I gave a multiple-choice quiz today with ten items. Each item has four > >response options, so the optimum difficulty level for any item would be > >about .625. For one question, most of the class got the question wrong > >and the actual item difficulty was .08. Does this mean that item itself > >was a difficult item (which would be a test construction issue and > >suggest that the item should be discarded from the test), or does it > >mean that the students were not prepared to answer the question (which > >would suggest either inadequate instruction by the professor or > >inadequate preparation by the students)? I'm looking at this because > >the question, in my estimation, was a simple question. Here it is: > > > >A student confronts his psychology professor and says, "You assigned > >Chapters 7 through 10, but nearly all of the items came from Chapter 7. > >How can you evaluate whether we know anything about the other material > >we were supposed to read?" The student is challenging the test on the > >basis of: > > > >A. Face validity > >B. Content validity > >C. Criterion validity > >D. Construct validity > > > >This to me seems like a straightforward question. Students chose > >equally from the three distractors. The topic was covered substantially > >in class through lecture and activities. The book also provides very > >easy coverage of this topic. I'm trying to decide why this question > >posed such a challenge to the students. > > > >Rod > > > > > >______________________________________________ > >Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. > >Department of Psychology > >LeTourneau University > >Post Office Box 7001 > >2100 South Mobberly Avenue > >Longview, Texas 75607-7001 > > > >Office: Education Center 218 > >Phone: 903-233-3893 > >Fax: 903-233-3851 > >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel > > > >--- > >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Janet L. Kottke, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Psychology > California State University, San Bernardino > 5500 University Parkway > San Bernardino, CA 92407 > 909-880-5585 (voice) > 909-880-7003 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (internet) > WWW: http://psychology.csusb.edu/io/index.htm > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
