mnething new From the pwt Writing the Perfect Examination William Kieffer, former Editor of THIS JOURNAI.stood in front of his office window pondering examinations as he wrote "Editor's Outlaok," J. CHEM.EDUC.,35,533 (1958).He wrote that ". . .teachers cannot be reminded too often that testing must have learning as its real goal." He goes on tosay that, "Too often the 'leaming'is only the [teachers'] limited and incidental learning of what grade.. . can be put on the card to discharge his obligation to the [administrators]. For the cynical, baffled inexperienced teacher or the disillusioned experienced teacher, ". . t h e examination is a compound guessing game: the [teacher] trying to guess what the student will not guess the [teacher] thinks is important." At the opposite extreme ". . is the idealistic view that the real value of an examination stops when the student sits down to write. Its usefulness is in the study it promotes! "Somewhere between these extremes there is a reasonableview of what an examination ought to be if it is going to teach the student more than he knows before he takes it. There is no formula for a perfect examination. It is compounded from a variety of ingredients in differing proportions. For the chemistry examination, at least three belong in it: information, problems, and 'essays.' " Recall-of-information, objective testing should be used for the obvious reasons: ease of test construction to cover material and ease of grading. Kieffer goes on to say that problems should also be included to try to simulate genuine situations. "Devising such questions is a difficult.. task. . . but rewarding." It can improve the teacher's own inquiring attitude toward the subject. Finally, the examination should require the student to write ". . . answers to well conceived 'essay' questions. The use of that important scientific tool, language, cannot be learned by students who have never been required to do more than grunt on an examination." The last paragraph of Kieffer's editorial is well stated and still appropriate (even though it was written 25 yrs ago). "No teacher can afford not to be critical of his own examinations. Chemistry teachers must guide the development of minds which belong to the scientists of the future. Moreover, all of their students will be among the educated citizens of the future. The present public misapprehension of what it means to be a truly educated person (and much has been said about the anti-intellectualism of our day) is in large part due to the thousands of purely factual examinations which todnv'a citizens distastefullv recall as their education in school. Future ~~~~-~ generations deserve better than this from those whose present te-
.
.
.
~
~
use in class. "As is the examination, so is the instruction; for students are wise enough to seek in a class that on which they are going to be examined [Ernest E. Boyles, The Science Teacher (February 1956)]. "Testing, What For?" Lorenzo Lisonbee, T h e Science T e a c h e r , 33,27 ( M a y 1966). "What are we really testing for? Does the test achieve its objectives? These questions plague even the professional test maker. The test as a whale, and each of its items, may be aimed a t well defined targets. How mod is the aim?" Lisonbee describes well the oroblems, shortshould the teacher strive for? An ideal test is a well-constructed test devised by the teacher himself, aimed a t the goals and content the teacher has established. He alone knows what he has covered and what directions were taken durine the course. Bv devising his own tests, he does not teach for the test, gut he uses tests to deiermine how well he accomplished the objectives set for himself and for his students.
966
Journal of Chemical Education
Edited by: JOSEPHS. SCHMUCKLER Chairman of Science Education Temple University 345 Riner Hall Philadelphia. PA 19122
"A Brief History of Objective Tests," Theodore A. Ashford, J. CHEM. EDUC.,49,420 ( J u n e 1972). There are few readers who will not recognize the name Ted Ashford, and his leadership and dedication to the ACS Testing Program. In this article Ashford discusses the origins of the objective test m o w ment, whichis traceable to the work of AlfredBinet in the early 1900's, through WWI and WWII to more recent times. It is an informative article and gives the educator a perspective an the evolution of thought and action in the area of testing and test development. "The T e s t as a Teaching and Learning Tool," Vincent J. Cusimano, T h e American Biology T e a c h e r , 37,176 ( M a r c h 1975). "Far an examination to be a good teaching, learning, and diagnostic tool, construction must highlight levels of the cognitive domain: knowledge, comprehension, application and analysis, synthesis, and evaluation." Cusimano gives a goad explanation of his methods to accomplish the objectives quoted above. "Preparing Better Classroom Tests," J o h n W. Lombard, T h e Science T e a c h e r , 32,33 (October 1965). Lombard, like Cusimano cited previously, uses the Bloom taxonony of hierarchical areas within the cognitive domain. He presents good examples of "How to" in test construction. His summation is worth r~arlina
a clarity of expression patience, a capacity for hard work, and a good sense of humor-essential when correcting the tests. In other words, all the same qualities you already have as a good teacher!" "Tests Tell U s Little a b o u t Talent," Michael A. Wallach, American Scientist, 64,57 (January-February 1976). "Although measures of academic skills are widely used to determine access to contested educational opportunities, especially in their upper ranges, the tests lack utility for predicting professional achievement." Wallach's article is an excellent, provacative review and analysis of the literature. His analysis is severely critical of current practices. He argues that, "If conventional test-taking skills more than significant competencies govern access to contested educational opportunities, these competencies will be underrepresented in the people who win more valuable educational credentials in the society. Having the credentials tends to ooen doors to roles of greater influence, so the attributes of the peopie holding such roles will be more likely to in^ fluence the over-all direction of the society." "Scoring Systems which Allow for Partial Knowledge," S.Friel a n d A. H. Johnstone, J. CHEM. EDUC.,5 5 , 7 1 7 (November 1978). The authors report on a study done to assess a procedure of awarding partial credit to incorrect answers on multiple-choice tests. "It is clear that when an examinee fails to select the correct option in a multiple-choice test, his rejection of the correct option and his choice of an incorrect option have a significance which should he recognized in the marking of a test. Failure to do this has been singled out as a weakness of the multiole-choice item. Multiole-choice items can
and their conclusions.
"Choosing t h e Right Test," J a n e t Wall a n d L e e Summerlin, T h e Science Teacher, 39,32 (November 1972). "Measuring student achievement is our best means of assessing instructional effectiveness, relevance of objectives to the classroom situation, effectiveness of courses and programs, and direction for program planning. With these thoughts in mind, this article is directed to the secondary school science teacher to assist him in more meanineful tertine in the classroom." " In their at,temnt to h d o teachers steer awav fram the "tell 'em and
tions used by the teacher. Teachers have the responsibility for assessing learning outcomes in their classes. Choosing or constructing an appropriate test to meet the specific purposes of the teacher's intentions is a most important responsibility. "Correlation hetween F r e q u e n t Testing a n d S t u d e n t P e r formance," R. R Martin a n d K a m Srikameswaran, J. CHEM. EDUC.,51,485 (July 1974).
~~~~
sophisticated cognitive activity. They define and discuss two viewpoints on testing: Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing. They clearly describe the uses of these two types of tests and the needs served by each type. Ten recognizable characteristics are given which are useful in selecting or constructing a test for classroom use. Each characteristic is discussed. They are 1)relevance, 2) balance, 3) efficiency, 4) ohjectivity, 5) specificity, 6) difficulty, 7 ) discrimination, 8) reliability, 9) fairness, 10) speediness. A chart is given that lists most of these characteristics and their qualities which can he used to help the teacher construct a proper test or to choose an appropriate, commercially produced, standardized test. This article is a must reference for all teachers of beeinnine level
A simple inexpensive procedure was used by the authors in their investigation and is described in the article. Is frequent testing using criterion-referenced tests (see orevious article bv Wall and Summerlin cited above1 useful to vuu a s a chemistrv teacher? Are the results , d n m n 4 l ~ ythe ~ulhur.. 1" u-mz thr " t r ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~te.t~wqur" ~ ~ t . ~ e ~ t i ~ ~ c L . , ~ ~ v ~ nrtt.w~ gn hg i , r \ ~ u t q 2ucl>2 !wth,d III y m r ~ , w u , I ~ , ~ c 3 " ~ t w
