在线与书面选择题测试:准确性和实用性

T. Petković, Z. Kostanjčar, A. Sovic
{"title":"在线与书面选择题测试:准确性和实用性","authors":"T. Petković, Z. Kostanjčar, A. Sovic","doi":"10.1504/IJIDSS.2010.033680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the online resources becoming common, one can ask what the limitations are when applied to online examinations. Standardised multiple-choice questions (MCQs) test are commonly used either as a tool to enable student self-examination or as a tool to test large number of students in a more efficient way. However, the means of delivery and what one intends the tests to measure should be carefully considered. During last two years in teaching, the course 'Signals and Systems', both online and written, proctored and non-proctored, MCQs test were used in production environment (in vivo). Obtained data suggest that test delivery method strongly influences test accuracy when measuring the knowledge students gained. Online non proctored delivery, although being the simplest, yields strongly biased results and is suitable only as a tool to enable student self-assessment of the gained knowledge, while the online or written (non-strictly) proctored tests are still the method of choice if one wants to objectively measure the knowledge gained by students.","PeriodicalId":311979,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Intell. Def. Support Syst.","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online vs. written multiple-choice questions tests: accuracy and usefulness\",\"authors\":\"T. Petković, Z. Kostanjčar, A. Sovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/IJIDSS.2010.033680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the online resources becoming common, one can ask what the limitations are when applied to online examinations. Standardised multiple-choice questions (MCQs) test are commonly used either as a tool to enable student self-examination or as a tool to test large number of students in a more efficient way. However, the means of delivery and what one intends the tests to measure should be carefully considered. During last two years in teaching, the course 'Signals and Systems', both online and written, proctored and non-proctored, MCQs test were used in production environment (in vivo). Obtained data suggest that test delivery method strongly influences test accuracy when measuring the knowledge students gained. Online non proctored delivery, although being the simplest, yields strongly biased results and is suitable only as a tool to enable student self-assessment of the gained knowledge, while the online or written (non-strictly) proctored tests are still the method of choice if one wants to objectively measure the knowledge gained by students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":311979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Intell. Def. Support Syst.\",\"volume\":\"99 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Intell. Def. Support Syst.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIDSS.2010.033680\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Intell. Def. Support Syst.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIDSS.2010.033680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

随着在线资源的普及,人们可能会问,应用于在线考试有什么限制。标准化选择题(mcq)测试通常被用作学生自我检查的工具,或者作为一种更有效的测试大量学生的工具。但是,应该仔细考虑交付的方式和测试要测量的内容。在过去两年的教学中,“信号与系统”课程,包括在线和书面,监考和非监考,mcq测试在生产环境(体内)中使用。获得的数据表明,在测量学生获得的知识时,测试传递方式对测试准确性有很大影响。在线无监考教学,虽然是最简单的,产生强烈的偏差结果,只适合作为一种工具,使学生对所获得的知识进行自我评估,而在线或书面(非严格)监考考试仍然是选择的方法,如果想客观地衡量学生获得的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Online vs. written multiple-choice questions tests: accuracy and usefulness
With the online resources becoming common, one can ask what the limitations are when applied to online examinations. Standardised multiple-choice questions (MCQs) test are commonly used either as a tool to enable student self-examination or as a tool to test large number of students in a more efficient way. However, the means of delivery and what one intends the tests to measure should be carefully considered. During last two years in teaching, the course 'Signals and Systems', both online and written, proctored and non-proctored, MCQs test were used in production environment (in vivo). Obtained data suggest that test delivery method strongly influences test accuracy when measuring the knowledge students gained. Online non proctored delivery, although being the simplest, yields strongly biased results and is suitable only as a tool to enable student self-assessment of the gained knowledge, while the online or written (non-strictly) proctored tests are still the method of choice if one wants to objectively measure the knowledge gained by students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Deep learning-based approach for malware classification A novel approach to design a digital clock triggered modified pulse latch for 16-bit shift register Program viewer - a defence portfolio capability management system Archival solution API to upload bulk file and managing the data in cloud storage Face recognition under occlusion for user authentication and invigilation in remotely distributed online assessments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1