The Effect of Applying Penalizing Wrong Answers and Short Answer Format in the Computerized Modified Multiple-choice Testing upon Backward Solving

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-575
Author(s):  
Min Hae Song ◽  
Jooyong Park
Author(s):  
Lisa K. Fazio ◽  
Elizabeth J. Marsh ◽  
Henry L. Roediger

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-177
Author(s):  
Raymond S. Nickerson ◽  
Susan F. Butler ◽  
Michael T. Carlin

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen B. McDermott ◽  
Pooja K. Agarwal ◽  
Laura D'Antonio ◽  
Henry L. Roediger ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zainal Abidin

National Examination and Cambridge Checkpoint are the instrument for evaluating the standard competence ofstudent which organized in Secondary Level. National Examination’s questions based on the National Curriculum ofIndonesia but Cambridge Checkpoint’s questions taken based on Cambridge Curriculum. The aims of this researchis analyzing the type of each question and distribution of each strands in the National Mathematics Examination 2015and Mathematics of Cambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015. This type of research is a descriptive studywith a qualitative approach. National Mathematics Examination 2015 has one paper only but Mathematics ofCambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015 has 2 papers for the test. It can be concluded that all question’stype of the National Mathematics Examination for Secondary Level 2015 are multiple choice questions. OnMathematics of Cambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015, there are various types of questions which consistof 11,43% short-answer question; 68,57% analysis question; 8,57% completing question; and 11,43% match questionfor paper 1, but 22,22% short-answer question; 58,33% analysis question; 11,11% completing question; 2,78% matchquestion; 2,78% multiple choice question; and 2,78% yes/no question for paper 2. Based on strands analyzing result,It can be determined that National Mathematics Examination for Secondary Level 2015 contain of 22,25% number;27,5 algebra; 40% geometry and measurement; 10% statistic and probability. On Mathematics of CambridgeCheckpoint for Secondary Level 2015, It can be explained that 45,72% number; 20% algebra; 17,14% geometry andmeasurement; and 17,14% statistic and probability for paper 1, and 33,33% number; 19,45% algebra; 25% geometryand measurement; and 22,22% statistic and probability for paper 2.


Author(s):  
Rebecca Hamer ◽  
Erik Jan van Rossum

Understanding means different things to different people, influencing what and how students learn and teachers teach. Mainstream understanding of understanding has not progressed beyond the first level of constructivist learning and thinking, ie academic understanding. This study, based on 167 student narratives, presents two hitherto unknown conceptions of understanding matching more complex ways of knowing, understanding-in-relativism and understanding-in-supercomplexity requiring the development of more complex versions of constructive alignment. Students comment that multiple choice testing encourages learning focused on recall and recognition, while academic understanding is not assessed often and more complex forms of understanding are hardly assessed at all in higher education. However, if study success depends on assessments-of-learning that credit them for meaning oriented learning and deeper understanding, students will put in effort to succeed.


Author(s):  
Robert Lado

Discussions of the testing of proficiency to write a foreign language are usually limited to techniques; and without a rationale or set criteria of what is to be tested, the result is confusion. Partly as a consequence of the lack of a rationale we are faced with a dearth of techniques in use. Essentially we find only two: objective short answer tests, which are distrusted, and composition tests, which are frustrating because of problems of scoring and the time involved.Superficial clichés are freely applied to these two techniques. Judgments are made on outward appearances — face validity — without reference to linguistic content or to empirically tested validity. On the basis of appearance, objective tests are criticized because presumably (1) they do not force the student to think, (2) they do not require that the student organize and present information, (3) they are only recognition, multiple choice tests, (4) they are considered elementary in comparison with the business of writing a free composition in the foreign language.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document