调查应答过程有效性与答案正确性之间的交叉点:重复尝试处理问题检测(RAPID)方法的开发

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Chemistry Education Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1039/D3RP00204G
David G. Schreurs, Jaclyn M. Trate, Shalini Srinivasan, Melonie A. Teichert, Cynthia J. Luxford, Jamie L. Schneider and Kristen L. Murphy
{"title":"调查应答过程有效性与答案正确性之间的交叉点:重复尝试处理问题检测(RAPID)方法的开发","authors":"David G. Schreurs, Jaclyn M. Trate, Shalini Srinivasan, Melonie A. Teichert, Cynthia J. Luxford, Jamie L. Schneider and Kristen L. Murphy","doi":"10.1039/D3RP00204G","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >With the already widespread nature of multiple-choice assessments and the increasing popularity of answer-until-correct, it is important to have methods available for exploring the validity of these types of assessments as they are developed. This work analyzes a 20-question multiple choice assessment covering introductory undergraduate chemistry topics which was given to students in an answer-until-correct manner. Response process validity was investigated through one-on-one think-aloud interviews with undergraduate chemistry students. Answer-until-correct validity was also explored using an analysis of partial credit assignments. Results indicated the convenience of the quantitative partial credit method came at great cost to the precision of validity issue detection and is therefore not a valid shortcut to more rich qualitative approaches. The repeated attempt processing issue detection (RAPID) method is a novel method developed as a combination of response process and answer-until-correct validity. Results from this new method revealed validity issues that were undetected from the use of either approach individually or in concert.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/rp/d3rp00204g?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation into the intersection between response process validity and answer-until-correct validity: development of the repeated attempt processing issue detection (RAPID) method\",\"authors\":\"David G. Schreurs, Jaclyn M. Trate, Shalini Srinivasan, Melonie A. Teichert, Cynthia J. Luxford, Jamie L. Schneider and Kristen L. Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D3RP00204G\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >With the already widespread nature of multiple-choice assessments and the increasing popularity of answer-until-correct, it is important to have methods available for exploring the validity of these types of assessments as they are developed. This work analyzes a 20-question multiple choice assessment covering introductory undergraduate chemistry topics which was given to students in an answer-until-correct manner. Response process validity was investigated through one-on-one think-aloud interviews with undergraduate chemistry students. Answer-until-correct validity was also explored using an analysis of partial credit assignments. Results indicated the convenience of the quantitative partial credit method came at great cost to the precision of validity issue detection and is therefore not a valid shortcut to more rich qualitative approaches. The repeated attempt processing issue detection (RAPID) method is a novel method developed as a combination of response process and answer-until-correct validity. Results from this new method revealed validity issues that were undetected from the use of either approach individually or in concert.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/rp/d3rp00204g?page=search\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d3rp00204g\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d3rp00204g","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着多项选择评估的普及和 "答非所问 "评估的日益流行,在开发这类评估时,必须有可用的方法来探索其有效性。本研究分析了以 "答对为止 "的方式向学生提供的 20 道多选题测评,内容涉及本科生化学入门课题。通过对化学专业本科生进行一对一的 "思考-朗读 "访谈,对回答过程的有效性进行了研究。此外,还通过对部分学分作业进行分析,探讨了 "答对为止 "的有效性。结果表明,部分学分定量方法的便利性是以有效性问题检测的精确性为巨大代价的,因此并不是一种有效的捷径,无法取代内容更丰富的定性方法。重复尝试处理问题检测法(RAPID)是一种结合了反应过程和 "答对为止 "有效性的新方法。这种新方法的结果揭示了单独使用或联合使用这两种方法都无法发现的有效性问题。
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
Investigation into the intersection between response process validity and answer-until-correct validity: development of the repeated attempt processing issue detection (RAPID) method

With the already widespread nature of multiple-choice assessments and the increasing popularity of answer-until-correct, it is important to have methods available for exploring the validity of these types of assessments as they are developed. This work analyzes a 20-question multiple choice assessment covering introductory undergraduate chemistry topics which was given to students in an answer-until-correct manner. Response process validity was investigated through one-on-one think-aloud interviews with undergraduate chemistry students. Answer-until-correct validity was also explored using an analysis of partial credit assignments. Results indicated the convenience of the quantitative partial credit method came at great cost to the precision of validity issue detection and is therefore not a valid shortcut to more rich qualitative approaches. The repeated attempt processing issue detection (RAPID) method is a novel method developed as a combination of response process and answer-until-correct validity. Results from this new method revealed validity issues that were undetected from the use of either approach individually or in concert.

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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
期刊最新文献
Guidance on the data availability statement requirement in CERP The use of mobile technology in abductive inquiry-based teaching and learning of chemical bonding Improving the teaching of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics: a systematic review with meta-analysis “I’m still here and I want them to know that”: experiences of chemists with concealable identities in undergraduate research A lack of impact of pedagogy (peer-led team learning compared with didactic instruction) on long-term student knowledge of chemical equilibrium
×
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