A COMPARISON OF THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF TWO METHODS FOR ASSESSING PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE ON A MULTIPLE-CHOICE TEST

Differential weighting of response alternatives and confidence testing have been proposed as ways to assess partial knowledge on multiple-choice tests. 211 students in an educational measurement course took their midterm examination under one of three procedures. Results from those students administered the test under conventional directions provided a baseline for comparing, in terms of reliability and validity, the results from students who took the test under the differential weighting of response alternatives or the confidence testing instructions. Reliability was estimated by the split-half technique. Validity was estimated by correlating midterm test scores with scores on a final examination. This investigation provides some support for the contention that validity can be improved using more sophisticated testing techniques. Suggestions for the conduct of more definitive studies were offered.     

DIFFERENTIAL WEIGHTING BY JUDGED DEGREE1OF CORRECTNESS

Two conventional scores and a weighted score on a group test of general intelligence were compared for reliability and predictive validity. One conventional score consisted of the number of correct answers an examinee gave in responding to 69 multiple-choice questions; the other was the formula score obtained by subtracting from the number of correct answers a fraction of the number of wrong answers. A weighted score was obtained by assigning weights to all the response alternatives of all the questions and adding the weights associated with the responses, both correct and incorrect, made by the examinee. The weights were derived from degree-of-correctness judgments of the set of response alternatives to each question. Reliability was estimated using a split-half procedure; predictive validity was estimated from the correlation between test scores and mean school achievement. Both conventional scores were found to be significantly less reliable but significantly more valid than the weighted scores. (The formula scores were neither significantly less reliable nor significantly more valid than number-correct scores.)     

Lighting the Way: Contrasting Arguments for the Arts in Education

This article explores the contrasting arguments for the place of the arts in education made by the two distinguished arts educators—the American Elliot Eisner and British dance and physical education theorist Graham McFee. Both scholars begin with the premise that the arts should be central to a liberal education and then diverge. McFee argues, from his success in seeing dance as part of the National Curriculum in the UK, that a conceptually precise and closely focused philosophical rationale is critical, whereas Eisner takes the opposite path—arguing for the inclusion of the arts because they embody the most profoundly central task of all education—the nuanced development of mind.     

清华大学和美国大学在学习过程指标上的比较:一种高等教育质量观

本研究对目前各种高等教育质量评估取向加以了分析和批判,指出学习过程性指标对于高等教育质量评估和保障的重要意义.在引进、修订美国当前最有影响的一套大学学习过程性指标NSSE(National Survey of Student Engagement)的基础上,本研究对清华大学和美国大学的本科教学进行了比较.研究结果显示,在整体水平上来说清华大学的本科教学和美国同类院校乃至美国总体大学水平之间不存在根本差异,但和美国最优异的本科教育相比清华还存在一定差距.